Politics 101

1. Contrast Durkheim’s theory of the division of labour with that of Marx
Both Marx and Durkheim dealt with the issue of division of labour. However, their approaches to the issue differ. Marx considers that division of labour tends to bring about more output. Durkheim on the other hand considers that there is a greater function in the division of labour than just improvement of productivity. For him, division of labour has a social function, that of creating the sense of solidarity among persons.
According to Gilman, women have a lesser representation in the work place, especially in the top positions, relative to their male counterparts. Over the years, women have had more representation in work places, but this has not reached equal levels. This section attempts to establish the best steps towards equality within the labor force.
Division of Labor in Marx and Durkheim
As already indicated, Durkheim and Marx differ in many ways in their approach to the issue of division of labor. The difference is especially seen in their understanding of the core function of division of labor. Durkheim was of the view that the greatest significance in the division of labor was the social function of creating unity (Gianfranco, 2000). Durkheim understood himself as having gone against his contemporary and past economists with regard to their understanding of the issue.
They saw the primary role of division of labor as having been the increase of production levels. For Durkheim however, increase in the levels of production does happen with a proper division of labor, but it is not the primary function or reason for division. It comes only as a consequence of the division. Marx on the other hand seems to have concurred with the traditional understanding of the economists, that the main reason for the division of labor was the need for increased productivity (Marx, 1964).
For Marx, a comparison between the family structure, where roles were divided within these small units, as well as the individual families, which were divided in the society, thereby creating direct opposition to each other. Here, the greatest point of divergence between Marx and Durkheim is seen. Marx felt that work, which was the most natural to the human person, was used as the greatest form of alienation. This was because of the differences in the labor remunerations, where those who did the hardest work were the least remunerated.
According to Durkheim, there would be greater happiness for humanity if there were more of labor resources. This was because; the need for specialization was motivated by the awareness of the potential for happiness created by doing what persons were best suited to do. This understanding meant that society was considered in Durkheim as a means for the realization of specialization (Gianfranco, 2000). The various individuals who are suited for the particular work come together, and in this way there is no lack of cooperation, which is very vital for happiness.
Marx on the other hand sought to separate the forces of production from the labourers (Marx, 1964).Marx saw a tension as having been existing between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. This would have serious ramifications in the way society would end up. In other words, the struggle that existed between the social classes, as well as the labor force was the two major driving forces of societal dynamics. This was according to Marx the way to understand and predict the possible occurrences in economic and social life in the future (Marx, 1964).
For Durkheim, division of labor in society is the sole representative of societal dynamics (Gianfranco, 2000).This was also a point of divergence with Marx. Both of them agree however, that the focus of the social sciences ought to have a twofold function, namely, analysing the ways in which production was done in society, as well as the ordering of the social classes. In this respect, both of them could be considered as having been structuralists.